RE: Inaccessible Comliant Sites

I fully agree with Wayne and just want to add my two cents to the discussion. I often hear the argument that a web site is not very useful for users with a specific disability and therefore the site is not accessible even if it complies with WCAG A or AA. In these cases I think we have to tell people that WCAG is also a compromise between different needs and preferences and the alternative specific guidelines according to specific disabilities or other special needs would be impossible to incorporate in any larger setting and totally against the idea of standardization.
As we see problems due to the users lack of knowledge to their AT applications, there are also problems with users not understanding the meaning of specific checkpoints and guidelines in WCAG e.g. device independent input. I have several times had to explain that this is the guideline about not using the mouse.
Cheers
Helle

Sincerely
Helle Bjarnø
Visual Impairment Knowledge Centre
Rymarksvej 1, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
Phone: +45 39 46 01 01
fax: +45 39 61 94 14
e-mail hbj@visinfo.dk
Direct phone: +45 39 46 01 04
Mobile: +45 20 43 43 47
www.visinfo.dk
www.euroaccessibility.org 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Dick
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:58 AM
To: EOWG (E-mail)
Subject: Inaccessible Comliant Sites


Why People Think W3C Compliant Sites Can Be Inaccessible:

This should start things off. 

1. Websites lie or stretch the truth:  Many institutions claim 
compliance when the claim is not true.  This gives users the impression 
that a compliant website is not accessible. 

2.  Priority 1 is pretty weak:  This compliance leaves some big 
usability holes.  Layout tables are permitted; device independent input 
can be skipped.  That can be enough to render a site profoundly 
difficult if not unusable.

3.  Other guidelines:  Some sites claim compliance with other guidelines 
or cite affiliation with independent accessibility projects to support 
accessibility claims.  Again the user sees the claim of accessibility 
and assumes some level of W3C compliance.

4.  Total reliance on automated tools:  A clean bill of health by an 
evaluation tool is not W3C compliance.  Many people pass tool at a 
certain level and call that their complete audit.  Periodically sites 
must be audited by people. 

5.  Inexperience with assistive technology:  Many new users blame the 
page when they cannot use the assistive technology.  I see this in my 
classes when I use Home Page Reader to illustrate points.

Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 09:48:01 UTC